I've tried putting myself in each of the major player's positions here. The Aunt's, Larry's father's and brother's, Larry's, the 'new' girlfriend's and I still come to the conclusion that Larry was absolutely disrespectful to the Aunt and that he knew ahead of time that he was going to be. That makes what he did all the more despicable.

Yep. And the family was also disrespectful to Larry. In my opinion, pointedly disrespectful so that they could feel morally superior by actively condemning Larry for moving on after divorce.

I read nothing in either the original story or the follow up post that would lead me to believe that anyone in the family thought they were "morally superior" to Larry. What they thought was "Aunt doesn't want strangers in her house on this ONE occasion and Larry is stubbornly insisting that he's going to bring along a stranger anyway."

That has nothing to do with morals and everything to do with character. Two different things.

update doesn't change my opinion, Larry was beyond rude. he was invited to dinner and told the condtion that noone other than family was invited, two people told him to either do as requested or stay away,

Small but important point of order: That's not what was said. He was told not to bring the girlfriend. He wasn't told to stay away. For all we know at that stage that could mean 'you WILL be here and your girlfriend isn't welcome'. We don't know if not going was even presented as an option.

And for all we know it could have meant "don't bring her. We will understand if that means you won't be there either."

We have NO REASON to suspect the family wouldn't have accepted if he declined the invitation. NONE. I don't know why you persist in painting that as the more likely choice. We don't know either way.

I've tried putting myself in each of the major player's positions here. The Aunt's, Larry's father's and brother's, Larry's, the 'new' girlfriend's and I still come to the conclusion that Larry was absolutely disrespectful to the Aunt and that he knew ahead of time that he was going to be. That makes what he did all the more despicable.

Yep. And the family was also disrespectful to Larry. In my opinion, pointedly disrespectful so that they could feel morally superior by actively condemning Larry for moving on after divorce.

how were they disrespectful of larry? he was issued an invitation and had 2 choices, he made up a third and caused the upset.

As several of us have said multiple times, and the OP has yet to clarify, it matters to me whether the "no GF/BFs" rule affected only Larry. I get the sense it did, based on the language chosen to describe Larry. It shouldn't matter that he is "recently" divorced, or anything other than the fact he was not married or living with his GF at Thanksgiving. The information about Larry's relationship history was provided to the OP, and by the OP, for some reason, and the words chosen painted a pretty clear picture of "don't we all disapprove of Larry and think his relationships are meaningless therefore let's make that clear to him?"

I've tried putting myself in each of the major player's positions here. The Aunt's, Larry's father's and brother's, Larry's, the 'new' girlfriend's and I still come to the conclusion that Larry was absolutely disrespectful to the Aunt and that he knew ahead of time that he was going to be. That makes what he did all the more despicable.

Yep. And the family was also disrespectful to Larry. In my opinion, pointedly disrespectful so that they could feel morally superior by actively condemning Larry for moving on after divorce.

I've tried putting myself in each of the major player's positions here. The Aunt's, Larry's father's and brother's, Larry's, the 'new' girlfriend's and I still come to the conclusion that Larry was absolutely disrespectful to the Aunt and that he knew ahead of time that he was going to be. That makes what he did all the more despicable.

Yep. And the family was also disrespectful to Larry. In my opinion, pointedly disrespectful so that they could feel morally superior by actively condemning Larry for moving on after divorce.

how were they disrespectful of larry? he was issued an invitation and had 2 choices, he made up a third and caused the upset.

As several of us have said multiple times, and the OP has yet to clarify, it matters to me whether the "no GF/BFs" rule affected only Larry. I get the sense it did, based on the language chosen to describe Larry. It shouldn't matter that he is "recently" divorced, or anything other than the fact he was not married or living with his GF at Thanksgiving. The information about Larry's relationship history was provided to the OP, and by the OP, for some reason, and the words chosen painted a pretty clear picture of "don't we all disapprove of Larry and think his relationships are meaningless therefore let's make that clear to him?"

This is what I see in the op

" Larry recently divorced from his third wife, and he really wanted to bring his new girlfriend to Thanksgiving dinner. ". Seems like a statement of fact to me. I don't see any word choice that says they feel morally superior or that they feel he shouldn't move on from his divorce.

Assisted living is not a nursing home. Essentially, around here, it is a serviced apartment with meals, and some care options (medication monitoring, dressing assistance) available as needed. People usually move to these in anticipation of needing increasing help. The apartments tend to be quite small and there are many common areas, activities, and transportation options available, and usually a nursing home facility is attached or affiliated when or if someone needs it. It is rather like the old-style "apartment hotels" that I always thought were a great idea. It did just occur to me that perhaps Aunt wanted to limit the gathering to "family including recognized social units" because she wanted to talk about giving her china, silver, crystal, books, piano, furniture, etc., away, because she won't have room for very much at all after she moves. That is not the kind of conversation one might have with random strangers, or even with friends -- unless they are to be included in the distribution -- around. No piano for Larry, and I can quite understand Aunt being fried at having her plans derailed, though Aunt could have closed that door, as could Larry. As soon as she know the score, GF could have said, "Ms. Aunt, I am so sorry. Larry didn't say this was a sit down dinner with limited space! Let me call a cab, and I am gone. I'd like to meet you another time, though." This gives Aunt the chance to say, "No, Martha (GF). Not your fault, and we're happy to meet you. Please do stay, we'll just set another place," or "Thank you for understanding, Martha, I look forward to seeing you another time, after I have moved." And then called that cab for Martha, or point Martha to the phone. If she froze, though, which I can understand, and Larry kept whispering "it's fINE" and cabs aren't readily available in the area, she did the best she could. She sounds kind of clueless, though. She moved in with this clown? Sigh.

I've tried putting myself in each of the major player's positions here. The Aunt's, Larry's father's and brother's, Larry's, the 'new' girlfriend's and I still come to the conclusion that Larry was absolutely disrespectful to the Aunt and that he knew ahead of time that he was going to be. That makes what he did all the more despicable.

Yep. And the family was also disrespectful to Larry. In my opinion, pointedly disrespectful so that they could feel morally superior by actively condemning Larry for moving on after divorce.

Wait, where are you getting that?

I have reread this thread to see if I missed something and do not see any inkling of that.

I have an associate that is a frequent relationship changer. Only issue is that he gets married each time, we are up to the 5th one. The marriages never last longer than a year. We invite him to an annual event and each time he brings a plus one that is a different woman.

We do not act morally superior.

Logged

ďAll that is gold does not glitter, Not all those who wander are lost; The old that is strong does not wither, Deep roots are not reached by the frost."-J.R.R Tolkien

And again, it very much matters whether Larry is the only adult who was told not to have his SO present at Thanksgiving. Since Larry was "chewed out" and the aunt was "very angry" and the cousin actively ignored Larry, I believe this was more than a situation of "Aunt doesn't have space for 21 people, only 20!" It is a situation of, "we don't believe Larry that his GF is important to him and we don't want his SO here." Presumably, had Larry still been married, his wife would have been welcomed. So it is a judgment on his relationship, and if his relationship was the only one affected, I absolutely see him - an adult, and likely not a young adult - being hurt by that.

I've tried putting myself in each of the major player's positions here. The Aunt's, Larry's father's and brother's, Larry's, the 'new' girlfriend's and I still come to the conclusion that Larry was absolutely disrespectful to the Aunt and that he knew ahead of time that he was going to be. That makes what he did all the more despicable.

Yep. And the family was also disrespectful to Larry. In my opinion, pointedly disrespectful so that they could feel morally superior by actively condemning Larry for moving on after divorce.

how were they disrespectful of larry? he was issued an invitation and had 2 choices, he made up a third and caused the upset.

As several of us have said multiple times, and the OP has yet to clarify, it matters to me whether the "no GF/BFs" rule affected only Larry. I get the sense it did, based on the language chosen to describe Larry. It shouldn't matter that he is "recently" divorced, or anything other than the fact he was not married or living with his GF at Thanksgiving. The information about Larry's relationship history was provided to the OP, and by the OP, for some reason, and the words chosen painted a pretty clear picture of "don't we all disapprove of Larry and think his relationships are meaningless therefore let's make that clear to him?"

This is what I see in the op

" Larry recently divorced from his third wife, and he really wanted to bring his new girlfriend to Thanksgiving dinner. ". Seems like a statement of fact to me. I don't see any word choice that says they feel morally superior or that they feel he shouldn't move on from his divorce.

I guess everyone's experiences are shaping how they read that statement. To me it was explaining that he'd gone through multiple breakups, has a new girlfriend and wanted to use Thanksgiving as a way to introduce her to the extended family. No morally judgement. Just a way of explaining why it seemed so important to Larry to bring the GF.

And I still say anyone who has the gumption to bring someone specifically not invited would have the gumption to not attend "3 whips or not". If you want to use that analogy, he not only didn't attend and vote the way his whip wanted him to vote, he went and voted for the opposition.

I've tried putting myself in each of the major player's positions here. The Aunt's, Larry's father's and brother's, Larry's, the 'new' girlfriend's and I still come to the conclusion that Larry was absolutely disrespectful to the Aunt and that he knew ahead of time that he was going to be. That makes what he did all the more despicable.

Yep. And the family was also disrespectful to Larry. In my opinion, pointedly disrespectful so that they could feel morally superior by actively condemning Larry for moving on after divorce.

how were they disrespectful of larry? he was issued an invitation and had 2 choices, he made up a third and caused the upset.

As several of us have said multiple times, and the OP has yet to clarify, it matters to me whether the "no GF/BFs" rule affected only Larry. I get the sense it did, based on the language chosen to describe Larry. It shouldn't matter that he is "recently" divorced, or anything other than the fact he was not married or living with his GF at Thanksgiving. The information about Larry's relationship history was provided to the OP, and by the OP, for some reason, and the words chosen painted a pretty clear picture of "don't we all disapprove of Larry and think his relationships are meaningless therefore let's make that clear to him?"

This is what I see in the op

" Larry recently divorced from his third wife, and he really wanted to bring his new girlfriend to Thanksgiving dinner. ". Seems like a statement of fact to me. I don't see any word choice that says they feel morally superior or that they feel he shouldn't move on from his divorce.

It's extraneous info. It's loaded. Nobody says "Larry's wife of 30 years died five years ago, and he really wants to bring his GF of 6 months to Thanksgiving dinner". The 'three divorces' and 'recent GF' are added details that are meant to make one clutch one's pearls in horror, or at least make one think of Larry as a reprobate of some kind. Those details aren't there to make you feel sympathy toward Larry, that's for sure.

And, at the risk of becoming tedious, it's almost certain that Larry is somewhere in the 50-70 age range. Four serious relationships in 30-50 years is hardly playing the field.

Assisted living is not a nursing home. Essentially, around here, it is a serviced apartment with meals, and some care options (medication monitoring, dressing assistance) available as needed. People usually move to these in anticipation of needing increasing help. The apartments tend to be quite small and there are many common areas, activities, and transportation options available, and usually a nursing home facility is attached or affiliated when or if someone needs it. It is rather like the old-style "apartment hotels" that I always thought were a great idea. It did just occur to me that perhaps Aunt wanted to limit the gathering to "family including recognized social units" because she wanted to talk about giving her china, silver, crystal, books, piano, furniture, etc., away, because she won't have room for very much at all after she moves. That is not the kind of conversation one might have with random strangers, or even with friends -- unless they are to be included in the distribution -- around.

It's not quite a nursing home, but it's still a situation where the elder has to divest themselves of a great many things, including their independence.

It also occurred to me that is why Aunt had specified "family only." In which case, a total stranger showing up totally derailed that plan. Even if the distribution of items were not on the table, the idea of an "family" gathering was spoiled by the presence of the new girlfriend (she wasn't living with Larry as yet).

Bottom line, the right of Aunt to control the guest list at HER home was violated by Larry's need to show off his new girlfriend.

I've tried putting myself in each of the major player's positions here. The Aunt's, Larry's father's and brother's, Larry's, the 'new' girlfriend's and I still come to the conclusion that Larry was absolutely disrespectful to the Aunt and that he knew ahead of time that he was going to be. That makes what he did all the more despicable.

Yep. And the family was also disrespectful to Larry. In my opinion, pointedly disrespectful so that they could feel morally superior by actively condemning Larry for moving on after divorce.

how were they disrespectful of larry? he was issued an invitation and had 2 choices, he made up a third and caused the upset.

As several of us have said multiple times, and the OP has yet to clarify, it matters to me whether the "no GF/BFs" rule affected only Larry. I get the sense it did, based on the language chosen to describe Larry. It shouldn't matter that he is "recently" divorced, or anything other than the fact he was not married or living with his GF at Thanksgiving. The information about Larry's relationship history was provided to the OP, and by the OP, for some reason, and the words chosen painted a pretty clear picture of "don't we all disapprove of Larry and think his relationships are meaningless therefore let's make that clear to him?"

This is what I see in the op

" Larry recently divorced from his third wife, and he really wanted to bring his new girlfriend to Thanksgiving dinner. ". Seems like a statement of fact to me. I don't see any word choice that says they feel morally superior or that they feel he shouldn't move on from his divorce.

It's extraneous info. It's loaded. Nobody says "Larry's wife of 30 years died five years ago, and he really wants to bring his GF of 6 months to Thanksgiving dinner". The 'three divorces' and 'recent GF' are added details that are meant to make one clutch one's pearls in horror, or at least make one think of Larry as a reprobate of some kind. Those details aren't there to make you feel sympathy toward Larry, that's for sure.

And, at the risk of becoming tedious, it's almost certain that Larry is somewhere in the 50-70 age range. Four serious relationships in 30-50 years is hardly playing the field.

I don't agree. Lots of people add info that isn't really needed and then get chastised for it later because people say "you only added that because you wanted people to feel a certain way". Most of the time people add the info because they think that it is better to add more rather then less. And if they didn't say it was a recent girlfriend there would have been people on this thread asking how long they had been together and making assumptions that way. Honestly I doubt the OP can win here.

I've tried putting myself in each of the major player's positions here. The Aunt's, Larry's father's and brother's, Larry's, the 'new' girlfriend's and I still come to the conclusion that Larry was absolutely disrespectful to the Aunt and that he knew ahead of time that he was going to be. That makes what he did all the more despicable.

Yep. And the family was also disrespectful to Larry. In my opinion, pointedly disrespectful so that they could feel morally superior by actively condemning Larry for moving on after divorce.

how were they disrespectful of larry? he was issued an invitation and had 2 choices, he made up a third and caused the upset.

As several of us have said multiple times, and the OP has yet to clarify, it matters to me whether the "no GF/BFs" rule affected only Larry. I get the sense it did, based on the language chosen to describe Larry. It shouldn't matter that he is "recently" divorced, or anything other than the fact he was not married or living with his GF at Thanksgiving. The information about Larry's relationship history was provided to the OP, and by the OP, for some reason, and the words chosen painted a pretty clear picture of "don't we all disapprove of Larry and think his relationships are meaningless therefore let's make that clear to him?"

This is what I see in the op

" Larry recently divorced from his third wife, and he really wanted to bring his new girlfriend to Thanksgiving dinner. ". Seems like a statement of fact to me. I don't see any word choice that says they feel morally superior or that they feel he shouldn't move on from his divorce.

It's extraneous info. It's loaded. Nobody says "Larry's wife of 30 years died five years ago, and he really wants to bring his GF of 6 months to Thanksgiving dinner". The 'three divorces' and 'recent GF' are added details that are meant to make one clutch one's pearls in horror, or at least make one think of Larry as a reprobate of some kind. Those details aren't there to make you feel sympathy toward Larry, that's for sure.

And, at the risk of becoming tedious, it's almost certain that Larry is somewhere in the 50-70 age range. Four serious relationships in 30-50 years is hardly playing the field.

I don't agree. Lots of people add info that isn't really needed and then get chastised for it later because people say "you only added that because you wanted people to feel a certain way". Most of the time people add the info because they think that it is better to add more rather then less. And if they didn't say it was a recent girlfriend there would have been people on this thread asking how long they had been together and making assumptions that way. Honestly I doubt the OP can win here.

Whichever way you slice it, the divorces are irrelevant. The fact that they are mentioned is telling.

I've tried putting myself in each of the major player's positions here. The Aunt's, Larry's father's and brother's, Larry's, the 'new' girlfriend's and I still come to the conclusion that Larry was absolutely disrespectful to the Aunt and that he knew ahead of time that he was going to be. That makes what he did all the more despicable.

Yep. And the family was also disrespectful to Larry. In my opinion, pointedly disrespectful so that they could feel morally superior by actively condemning Larry for moving on after divorce.

how were they disrespectful of larry? he was issued an invitation and had 2 choices, he made up a third and caused the upset.

As several of us have said multiple times, and the OP has yet to clarify, it matters to me whether the "no GF/BFs" rule affected only Larry. I get the sense it did, based on the language chosen to describe Larry. It shouldn't matter that he is "recently" divorced, or anything other than the fact he was not married or living with his GF at Thanksgiving. The information about Larry's relationship history was provided to the OP, and by the OP, for some reason, and the words chosen painted a pretty clear picture of "don't we all disapprove of Larry and think his relationships are meaningless therefore let's make that clear to him?"

This is what I see in the op

" Larry recently divorced from his third wife, and he really wanted to bring his new girlfriend to Thanksgiving dinner. ". Seems like a statement of fact to me. I don't see any word choice that says they feel morally superior or that they feel he shouldn't move on from his divorce.

It's extraneous info. It's loaded. Nobody says "Larry's wife of 30 years died five years ago, and he really wants to bring his GF of 6 months to Thanksgiving dinner". The 'three divorces' and 'recent GF' are added details that are meant to make one clutch one's pearls in horror, or at least make one think of Larry as a reprobate of some kind. Those details aren't there to make you feel sympathy toward Larry, that's for sure.

And, at the risk of becoming tedious, it's almost certain that Larry is somewhere in the 50-70 age range. Four serious relationships in 30-50 years is hardly playing the field.

I don't agree. Lots of people add info that isn't really needed and then get chastised for it later because people say "you only added that because you wanted people to feel a certain way". Most of the time people add the info because they think that it is better to add more rather then less. And if they didn't say it was a recent girlfriend there would have been people on this thread asking how long they had been together and making assumptions that way. Honestly I doubt the OP can win here.

Whichever way you slice it, the divorces are irrelevant. The fact that they are mentioned is telling.

I agree, and also, it wasn't the OP who added the unnecessary info: it was Larry's cousin who added it in the telling of the tale to the OP. So that immediately puts a slant on it for me, and why I'm thinking there's probably a bit of judgement going on from the family, and why I think the GF has been discounted by them as so unimportant.